Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

RAILhead · Jan 4, 2008, 12:06 AM

RESULTS:
Obama 37.53; Edwards 29.88; Clinton 29.41
Huckabee 34; Romney 25; Thompson 14; McCain 13%; Paul 10%

Discuss...

(not that these numbers really mean anything...)

I, for one, am THRILLED Shrillary got her huge arse handed to her.

nonhuman · Jan 4, 2008, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I, for one, am THRILLED Shrillary got her huge arse handed to her.

I just wish she hadn't still gotten nearly 30% of the vote.

Cold Warrior · Jan 4, 2008, 12:13 AM

wow, 3rd is very embarrassing loss for Clinton. Edwards' second-place finish means nothing. He's not a national-level candidate anyway.

Surprised McCain finished fourth. Thompson's campaign has no energy (neither does the candidate).

dcmacdaddy · Jan 4, 2008, 12:22 AM

I don't think Hillary got her ass handed to her--she was essentially tied for second with Edwards--but it was nice to see her bubble get burst. Of course, New Hampshire will be another matter altogether. I think it will be much more of a blow-out there for Obama with Hillary coming in strong in second place and Edwards in a true, third-place position.

As for the Republicans, Mike Huckabee is going to be crushed by Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. I think McCain will show stronger than Huckabee in New Hampshire. I am up in the air on Ron Paul, though. I don't think he can improve his standings too much in NH--I think he will be a fourth-place finisher--but I think he can improve his overall percentage. My prediction for NH is Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Thompson, Giuliani.

selowitch · Jan 4, 2008, 12:39 AM

Clinton's concession speech was TERRIBLE (and I speak here as someone who might very well vote for her when the time comes), awkward, nattering, all-about-her. Edwards gave a very good concession, but the speech of the night belonged to Barack Obama, who was electrifying. For one night at least, we can honestly believe that this man could become the next president. Glad Richardson is still in it; he's the best-qualified candidate of the bunch.

On the Republican side, I am impressed by the showing of Mike Huckabee, a nice guy whose opinions and policies scare the crap out of me. It's wonderful to see Guy Smiley come in second with all his money --- what a schmuck! Thompson contesting for third suprises me, considering that McCain is running a vastly superior campaign to his. Watch out, though --- Rudy Giuliani is waiting in Florida like a shark to strike. His gamble just might pay off and change the race completely.

Eug · Jan 4, 2008, 12:59 AM

Yuck. Saw a bit of this on TV.

This is like elections... but 50 times over.

Big Mac · Jan 4, 2008, 01:45 AM

It's going to be an interesting election year. Hickabee and Hussein won Iowa.

BRussell · Jan 4, 2008, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I, for one, am THRILLED Shrillary got her huge arse handed to her.

I think a lot of non-Democrats switched over to vote against her, and that helped Obama greatly.

Big Mac · Jan 4, 2008, 03:19 AM

Is that possible to do in a Caucus? Don't you have to be a registered party member to Caucus with that party? I'm pretty sure you do.

BRussell · Jan 4, 2008, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Is that possible to do in a Caucus? Don't you have to be a registered party member to Caucus with that party? I'm pretty sure you do.

From what I've read, you have to register with a party, but you can do so on-site.

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

got her huge arse

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that in real life you realize the idea of attacking anyone's body image, let alone a woman's, is utterly lacking in class, and is hence not something you are in the habit of doing.

The question remains then, why do it here?

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think a lot of non-Democrats switched over to vote against her, and that helped Obama greatly.

Works for me.

Shaddim · Jan 4, 2008, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by subego

The question remains then, why do it here?

because she's repulsive in so many ways and it would be good to see someone, anyone, other than her get the Democratic nomination?

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

because she's repulsive in so many ways and it would be good to see someone, anyone, other than her get the Democratic nomination?

The goal is good.

The tactic moves one negligibly towards that goal, yet normalizes this culturally destructive behavior.

Seems like a net loss to me.

BRussell · Jan 4, 2008, 04:14 AM

Here are some exit polls for Dems.

Democrats
Obama 32%
Clinton: 31

Independents
Obama: 41
Clinton: 17

Republicans
Obama: 44
Clinton: 10

That bodes well for Obama's chances of carrying his win through the general election, if he gets the nomination.

Big Mac · Jan 4, 2008, 04:47 AM

Not going to happen. And since we're in an American politics thread, I want to let you know your sig is very much misinformed, Russel.

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Not going to happen.

[elaboration goes here]

BRussell · 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And since we're in an American politics thread, I want to let you know your sig is very much misinformed, Russel.

Funny that you say that on the night that Huckabee - the absolute embodiment of the social conservative/fiscal liberal - wins a Republican election. Not that the Republican party needed to elect anyone new to prove this point...

[edit]Actually, I've had that signature for several years, so I've decided to change. In my new sig, I describe my hunting experiences.

Big Mac · 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by subego

[elaboration goes here]

As I have said before, Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is left of center, and the country rejected left of center candidates in the last two presidential elections. Sure, BHO is a charismatic leader, but charisma only takes a presidential candidate so far. But let's assume he gets the nomination, which I don't think he will. If BHO wants to have any chance of succeeding in a general election, he's going to have to run to the center - and that will be a difficult dance for him. He would stand a very good chance of winning if he were a moderate similar to Bill Clinton, but he's not. Also, on a superficial but important psychological level, BHO's name is a huge liability.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Funny that you say that on the night that Huckabee - the absolute embodiment of the social conservative/fiscal liberal - wins a Republican election. Not that the Republican party needed to elect anyone new to prove this point...

I don't disagree that much of the Republican party is unfortunately fiscally liberal in the de facto rather than theoretical sense, but you're completely wrong with that Democrat line. Claiming Democrats are fiscally conservative is absolutely absurd, I assure you.

Shaddim · Jan 4, 2008, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by subego

The goal is good.

The tactic moves one negligibly towards that goal, yet normalizes this culturally destructive behavior.

Seems like a net loss to me.

Well, it is rather large and unpleasant to look at.

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

As I have said before, Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is left of center, and the country rejected left of center candidates in the last two presidential elections.

You make it sound like a blowout. Not to mention the first "rejection" is debatable.

Look how many people voted for Kerry (raises hand), and he was a schmuck.

It's by no mean a done deal, but I find your assuredness surprising.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't disagree that much of the Republican party is unfortunately fiscally liberal in the de facto rather than theoretical sense, but you're completely wrong with that Democrat line. Claiming Democrats are fiscally conservative is absolutely absurd, I assure you.

I would say the same of the Democrats. They are theoretically liberal but were stonewalled from being so by the Republican majority.

BRussell · Jan 4, 2008, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't disagree that much of the Republican party is unfortunately fiscally liberal in the de facto rather than theoretical sense, but you're completely wrong with that Democrat line. Claiming Democrats are fiscally conservative is absolutely absurd, I assure you.

I just look at the facts on record, I assure you.

Here's the catch: If you define fiscal conservatism as cutting taxes regardless of spending, then Republicans are fiscally conservative. If you define it as "paying-as-you-go" and balancing the budget, then Democrats are. I don't see how any reasonable definition of fiscal conservatism can be the former, but it's really the only way to claim Republicans are and Dems aren't. Neither party is interested in dramatically cutting spending, so if that's your definition, then I agree that Democrats aren't that. I just don't think that's what fiscal conservatism is.

subego · Jan 4, 2008, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Well, it is rather large and unpleasant to look at.

The question is posed to you as well then. Since it serves no purpose other than taking a shot at someone for not meeting your standards of beauty, what do you get out of it?

I think it's kinda weird that's what floats your boat.

wallinbl · Jan 4, 2008, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by selowitch

Rudy Giuliani is waiting in Florida like a shark to strike. His gamble just might pay off and change the race completely.

Do our votes still count? I guess the RNC isn't as bad as the DNC who went to court to disqualify our primary. They can have their pissing match about dates if they want, but where the hell do the get off deciding my vote doesn't count anymore?

wallinbl · Jan 4, 2008, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

This is like elections... but 50 times over.

Don't worry, in a few weeks, 20 states go in the same day. It's all pretty much over after that day.

red rocket · Jan 4, 2008, 08:04 AM

Billary has a big arse? I have to admit, I never looked at it, seeing as I find the whole woman repugnant, but could this mean she's trying to attract votes from the considerable percentage of voters who would not otherwise vote for her but may be swayed because they are attracted to large female posteriors? Obama, look out.

ebuddy · Jan 4, 2008, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by subego

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that in real life you realize the idea of attacking anyone's body image, let alone a woman's, is utterly lacking in class, and is hence not something you are in the habit of doing.

The question remains then, why do it here?

Because here at MacNN people call one another insane over political disagreements, make obscure abortion references about white babies being delicious, insult one-another's religions and cultures, and enjoy another hot-babes pic thread from time to time.

Who people are in public and who they are at the truck and tractor pull we call MacNN are often two different things. If not here, where?

RAILhead · Jan 4, 2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by subego

The question is posed to you as well then. Since it serves no purpose other than taking a shot at someone for not meeting your standards of beauty, what do you get out of it?

I think it's kinda weird that's what floats your boat.

Dude, stop the Emo NOW, go outside, and GET A LIFE. Are you really so fragile?

Dork. · Jan 4, 2008, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Don't worry, in a few weeks, 20 states go in the same day. It's all pretty much over after that day.

And we'll have three or four months until the conventions, followed by another two or three months until the election. I'm getting tired of how long this process is! Everyone moved their primaries up to try and make their state more relevant, only to have everyone crowded together so none of it seems relevant.

I read recently that Mike Bloomberg is thinking of jumping in as an independent. He'll have the advantage that most states still have saner schedules for independent campaigns, so he can wait and see who the party nominees are before jumping in. He would finance the entire campaign himself, and would only jump in if he had a chance of winning outright. If the nominees are Hillary and Rudy, I think he would have a good chance!

wallinbl · Jan 4, 2008, 08:40 AM

I'm not fully in line with Huckabee or Obama in terms of their particular positions, but I do like the prospect of the two of them winning the nominations. It would be nice if the "old guard" politicians would get the message that we're sick and tired of the same old crap. Even if I don't agree directly with their positions, I think I may cast my vote their way just to send the message that it's time for something different. At least this time around, the "different" candidates are reasonably viable. Apologies to Perot and Nader supporters, but those guys were never going to win, and as long as you don't beat the other politicians, they don't really care.

dcmacdaddy · 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Well, it is rather large and unpleasant to look at.

How many times have you ever seen Hillary's huge arse, either accidentally or deliberately?

I mean, when footage of the candidates comes on the air do you actually strive to see her arse just to be repelled by it?
Or is the accidental ass-shot on the TV that catches you off guard? Damn those news channels for pointing a camera at Hillary's ass.
<shakes fist in a mock rage intending to ridicule you>

Dakar the Fourth · Jan 4, 2008, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

make obscure abortion references about white babies being delicious

Hey, that was yesterday and I might have been involved in that!

dcmacdaddy · Jan 4, 2008, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Dude, stop the Emo NOW, go outside, and GET A LIFE. Are you really so fragile?

As for you Maury, stop the misogyny NOW.

You and Shaddim and ebuddy really are struggling with your hatred for this woman if you have the need to criticize her physical appearance so vociferously. How about you stick to criticizing her smarmy insincerity and political desperation; You'll make more valid political arguments that way and be a lot closer to the truth as to why she is a terrible candidate (and would make a terrible president).

Dork. · Jan 4, 2008, 09:20 AM

In fairness, Bill has a huge arse, too.

dcmacdaddy · Jan 4, 2008, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

In fairness, Bill has a huge arse, too.

Probably. And he would be as bad a candidate in 2008 as Hillary.

dcmacdaddy · Jan 4, 2008, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

As I have said before, Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is left of center, and the country rejected left of center candidates in the last two presidential elections. Sure, BHO is a charismatic leader, but charisma only takes a presidential candidate so far. But let's assume he gets the nomination, which I don't think he will. If BHO wants to have any chance of succeeding in a general election, he's going to have to run to the center - and that will be a difficult dance for him. He would stand a very good chance of winning if he were a moderate similar to Bill Clinton, but he's not. Also, on a superficial but important psychological level, BHO's name is a huge liability.

Looks like you are one of these people bothered by the superficiality of Barack Obama's name. You mention his middle name (or middle initial) every time you reference him? Why is that? Are you bothered by the fact he has a Muslim father who gave him an Arabic middle name? Do you think that this somehow makes him less capable of being a president (similar to how Hillary's big arse makes her less capable of being a president)? Or, is it that as a conservative Jew who is strongly pro-Israel you have an in-bred suspicion of all things Islamic/Arabic? Thoughts?

MacosNerd · Jan 4, 2008, 09:38 AM

I'm surprised and pleased by the outcome.

Romney outspent and out campaigned his rivals yet lost by a fairly large percentage. I think the negative ads that romney's been playing has back fired.

As important as it is, the Iowa caucus is just the start of the race and its a marathon, not a sprint.

The real test for these two candidates (Huckabee and Obama) is the New Hampshire primary. Up till now, clinton had a fairly large lead over Obama. Lets see if that changes.

As for the republican side, it seems that Romney is trying real hard to get back in the lead in the polls. right now or at least up till yesterday he was gaining in the polls. Who knows now that he lost so handily.

Guiliani is nearly a parenthetical to the race. Chose not to participate in Iowa and his NH numbers are paltry.

Dork. · Jan 4, 2008, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Probably. And he would be as bad a candidate in 2008 as Hillary.

Maybe, but I would pick Bill over Hillary. There's something about her that I just don't like. I can't really put my finger on it, besson3c has asked me multiple times for more specifics about why I don't trust her and I come up blank. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her either time for Senator, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's the "smarmy insincerity and political desperation" I'm detecting?

nonhuman · Jan 4, 2008, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Maybe, but I would pick Bill over Hillary. There's something about her that I just don't like. I can't really put my finger on it, besson3c has asked me multiple times for more specifics about why I don't trust her and I come up blank. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her either time for Senator, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's the "smarmy insincerity and political desperation" I'm detecting?

Maybe it's because she takes every chance she can get to ban video games that don't meet her ideological standards?

Dork. · Jan 4, 2008, 09:54 AM

She definitely has a "Why won't you think of the chidren!" vibe around her that I can't stand, especially after I became a parent.

RAILhead · Jan 4, 2008, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

As for you Maury, stop the misogyny NOW.

You and Shaddim and ebuddy really are struggling with your hatred for this woman if you have the need to criticize her physical appearance so vociferously. How about you stick to criticizing her smarmy insincerity and political desperation; You'll make more valid political arguments that way and be a lot closer to the truth as to why she is a terrible candidate (and would make a terrible president).

Heh, I love it when intarnet people tell me what to do. How about you quit being an idiot "NOW"?

Seriously, people, what's up with you all? If I would have said I like that Romney had is toothy grin handed to him, you silly kids wouldn't have batted an eye.

Say it with me: SERENITY NOW...SERENITY NOW...

dcmacdaddy · Jan 4, 2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Maybe, but I would pick Bill over Hillary. There's something about her that I just don't like. I can't really put my finger on it, besson3c has asked me multiple times for more specifics about why I don't trust her and I come up blank. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her either time for Senator, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's the "smarmy insincerity and political desperation" I'm detecting?

Certainly Bill > Hillary when it comes to being a president but I wouldn't want either one of them in the White House again. For me, it really is her "smarmy insincerity". Maybe I am just projecting this on her (Where's Kevin with his projector graphic when you need him?) but I don't think anything she says is genuine; I think it is all calculated political speech designed to win over whatever audience she is addressing. I have seen her give numerous speeches, once in person, and I have never felt inspired or optimistic as a result. I think she is quite smart and capable of dealing with all the varied issues that would face a president--un-like someone like Huckabee or Guiliani--but I think those smarts have been warped by the drive to succeed such that achieving the goal has become the only goal.

Dakar the Fourth · Jan 4, 2008, 10:23 AM

Yeah, if I had to sum up Hilary in one word, I go with insincere.

dcmacdaddy · 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Heh, I love it when intarnet people tell me what to do. How about you quit being an idiot "NOW"?

Seriously, people, what's up with you all? If I would have said I like that Romney had is toothy grin handed to him, you silly kids wouldn't have batted an eye.

Say it with me: SERENITY NOW...SERENITY NOW...

Criticizing someone for having a "toothy grin" is not misogyny and you know it.

Pssst: Here's a hint. If you are going to criticize someone for telling you what to do, you probably shouldn't engage in the same behavior by telling other people what to do.

RAILhead · Jan 4, 2008, 10:39 AM

I'm still puzzled that ANYONE could use me and misogamy in the same sentence.

Eug · Jan 4, 2008, 11:40 AM

Looking at this as an outsider...

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Don't worry, in a few weeks, 20 states go in the same day. It's all pretty much over after that day.

Yeah, but what I don't understand is how a state as small as Iowa is made out to be so important. Why do they get their own day? Not that Guiliani has any chance in this, but I find it interesting that he just said frack u to Iowa.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

Yeah, if I had to sum up Hilary in one word, I go with insincere.

I'm not sure if that's the word I'd pick. However, she is "unconvincing" and "uninspiring", whether she is sincere or not.

Barack Obama definitely has more charisma, but I'm not convinced there is a lot of substance there. Not that historically "substance" has dictated who gets to be president, but nonetheless one would like such a candidate to be more experienced.

John Edwards... Who? Yeah, we've heard the name, but outside of the US that's about it.

As for Huckabee, while I'm not one to subscribe to his views, I'm just amused he kicked his main opponent's ass so badly, since he spent sooooo much less than Romney.

Laminar · Jan 4, 2008, 11:41 AM

I'm glad it's finally over. I've had to endure constant political ads on TV and 6-10 phone calls per night, usually during dinner for the last month or two. Maybe now my family can eat a meal in peace and enjoy Wheel of Fortune without being told which candidate likes to eat white babies.

Laminar · Jan 4, 2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Yeah, but what I don't understand is how a state as small as Iowa is made out to be so important. Why is that?

Because it's the first, and it often sets the mood for the rest of the campaign. A win in Iowa can get a lot of contributions and support for your team.

Dork. · Jan 4, 2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Because it's the first, and it often sets the mood for the rest of the campaign. A win in Iowa can get a lot of contributions and support for your team.

IIt has traditionally been the first presidential contest. And it's a caucus, which means people actually get together and talk about the candidates, then vote in a sort of group fashion. It's more of a meeting than an election.

It's usually not this early, but other state legislatures decided to move their Primary dates up to be more "relevant", and Iowa and New Hampshire moved their dates up accordingly.

wallinbl · Jan 4, 2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

enjoy Wheel of Fortune

That's funny.